Alexander_Droste added a comment. Ah ok, I wasn't aware that clang-tidy is not restricted to checks which verify stylistic issues. What makes it more convenient to integrate the checks in clang-tidy? Is it how the AST-Matcher functionality can be accessed?
> I'm not an expert in the static analyzer code, so I'm not the one to review > even AST-based checks there. The AST-based checks basically use zero functionality from the static analyzer codebase except the entry callback and the functionality to generate bug reports. > There's nothing that prevents adding more error-detecting checks to > clang-tidy. Wrt. to the checks being part of this patch I have some concerns: The first problem I see is that some functionlity is shared between the AST-based and path-sensitive checks. But I think this should be restricted to the `MPIFunctionClassifier` class. Another question I have is how this would affect the usability. At the moment all detected bugs (AST-based and path-sensitive) appear in a single report, generated by `scan-build`. Is there still a way to get the results in a single report if the checks get moved to `clang-tidy`? Would the implementation need to change to AST-Matcher based? The point about the current implementation is that the AST-based checks are also already backed by a range of tests defined in `tools/clang/test/Analysis/MPIChecker.cpp`. http://reviews.llvm.org/D12761 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
